Perhaps because he's genuinely excited and surprised at Apple's success. Jobs is very much a "do the best you can and be the best and you'll do well" kind of person. He pours himself into Apple's products and expects the same from Apple's employees. I'm sure he expects success, but the level of success Apple has had is amazing and overwhelming.

Steve also still shows genuine amazement at where technology has come. This is the guy who helped assemble Apple Is in a garage by hand. And now they are the second most valuable company in the world!?

He may not be a Woz-level engineer, but he is a real tech-fanboy.

- Jasen.

P.S. IBM also reported earnings http://newsystocks.com/news/3752175
"International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE: IBM) said Monday that its third-quarter net income improved to $3.6 billion, or $2.82 a share, from $3.2 billion, or $2.40 a share, in the year-ago period. Excluding non-operating pension charges and acquisition-related charges, operating net earnings would have been $3.63 billion or $2.85 per share for the quarter.Revenue grew 3% to $24.3 billion. "

Apple had higher net income, but lower quarterly revenue. Apple almost bigger than IBM? Who'd have thunk it in the 80s or 90s?

IBM ditched trying to sell crappy Windows on PCs just in time to save their real core business. I wonder what Dell's fall back plan is?

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Except that they don't sell apps like iWork for the iPod touch. The iPad is a viable general purpose computer. The iPhone and touch are not.

Re-word your post dude.
ipad is a great computer.
ipod touch and iphone ares still viable computers .
The IPOD touch has 10,000 times more computing power compared to the computer that was on the apollo 13 space craft to the moon ... I sentence you to the ZUNE store !!!

His comments are even more applicable to a 3.2 inch screen than a 7 inch screen. That is the point he wishes people would overlook.

Actually, no their not.

The controls and text on the small iPhone screen are small but usable-- even for people with fat fingers (like me).

When you write an app for the iPad, you increase the size of things slightly -- to make the controls easier to touch, farther apart and text easier to read. The iPad has about 4x the real estate as the iPhone-- but you don't make things 4x larger. Rather, you put more information on the screen and/or make it more pleasing to the eye.

Conversely, in another post, I discuss why you can't easily downsize an app from a larger screen to a smaller screen -- you need to rethink the application.

You might be able to implement the iTunes multi-column UI on an iPad (barely). I don't think it would work on a 7" screen -- certainly not on an iPhone screen.

.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

If you have designed an app for the small iPhone screen it will scale up 2x on the iPad screen. Most apps look ugly -- bigger but ugly, with a lot of wasted space! The controls are too big, the text is too big -- lots of jaggies because no anti-aliasing.

There are exceptions, but you usually have to rethink an app when you move it to the iPad.

The mail app is a good example:

On the iPhone, it's a single column table (scrollable list) with a drill-down:

Mailboxes-->mail summary-->mail detail (the email message)

On the iPad, it's a two tables (side-by-side scrollable lists) with a drill down on the left list

Mailboxes-->mail summary left column or popup (portrait)

mail detail (the email message) right column or underlay (portrait)

The controls and text are about 30-50% larger than on the smaller screen.

If you started with the larger format and scale it down to 45% of the original-- it could easily be less usable than the iPhone.

Samsung, on their Galaxy Tab appears to have provided all the basic "system apps" (mail, calendar, contacts, browser, etc.) where this might be a factor. What they appear to have done is something between the iPhone and iPad -- something specifically scaled to the 7" format.

This, at least, looks OK. Any other Android tablets that do not provide their own "system apps" will have them disproportionate to the size of the screen.

I haven't heard the transcript yet, but I will. I would say, however, that I find Steve's style of speaking, and his facial expressions when giving his viewpoint, are more akin to somebody who is amazed that not everyone else"gets it", especially when it's so "obvious" to him. This is somewhat typical of a true genius .... slightly impatient ... as their thinking is way ahead of most of us. I can easily see where this might come off as bitching.

Impatient? Steve? Well... at least he didn't call anyone a Bozo!

.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Except that they don't sell apps like iWork for the iPod touch. The iPad is a viable general purpose computer. The iPhone and touch are not.

Those are two red herrings.

They do not sell iTouch for any 7 inch device either.

Whether or not the iPad is a "viable general purpose computer" ain't got nothin to do with nothin.

The subject of discussion is "Jobs then quipped that small form-factor tablets will need to ship with sandpaper so users can file down their fingers to the point where they can hit smaller targets on the screen. Elements can only get so small before users can't perform these types of touch and pinch gestures, Jobs insisted."

The internet has millions of websites .... does that keep people off the net? Quality app developers will go where the "foot traffic" goes. I can only see the overall quality of the app store getting better and better .... just like the web experience of the last several years.

How is this different from, say, the PC software market? There, you've got literally millions of potential applications vying for your attention, and the entire internet to find them on. How could anyone possibly ever locate a quality app, and how can developers possible make money?

The same way vendors always have: by building a great product and advertising. Why are we obliged to assume that being in the App Store means that that is your one and only way of getting exposure for your product? Do the people that sell stuff in Walmart figure that once they get a product on the shelves they're done? Do Walmart shoppers just throw up their hands and say "Wow, there's way too much shit in this place, how am I supposed to know which ones are any good?"

Make a website. Send copies to tast makers. Buy some ad space on a heavily trafficked blog with a readership that fits your demographic. Just because App Store means that most anyone can get an iOS application in front of potential buyers doesn't mean that the App Store is obliged to market that app. And just because the App Store gives me a central location to purchase apps doesn't mean that the App Store is obliged to do all my research for me and magically guide me to the that particular app that best suits my needs.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

It depends on what the app need to do in the background. Xcode cannot read developers minds. The developer have to tell the app what to do when it goes to the back ground and what to do when the app becomes active. However, if there are no special background processes then the developer don't have anything to worry about it since iOS it self implement the save state feature (AKA fast app switching).

Multitasking and background processes are device independent. Meaning they work exactly the same on all device and the developer don't have to worry about different devices. They either work or don't.

Again, not quite true..

I had an iPhone app that had several tabs and drill downs where the user could enter or modify data.

Until iOS 4 I was able to save state with the following in the appropriate ViewControllers:

If you design an app for a 7inch screen, you'll be fine. Why doesn't Steve get this? Hell, with a 7inch screen you would get the benefit of bigger real estate and the real possibility you could continue to thumb type.

If you have designed an app for the small iPhone screen it will scale up 2x on the iPad screen. Most apps look ugly -- bigger but ugly, with a lot of wasted space! The controls are too big, the text is too big -- lots of jaggies because no anti-aliasing.

There are exceptions, but you usually have to rethink an app when you move it to the iPad.

The mail app is a good example:

On the iPhone, it's a single column table (scrollable list) with a drill-down:

Mailboxes-->mail summary-->mail detail (the email message)

On the iPad, it's a two tables (side-by-side scrollable lists) with a drill down on the left list

Mailboxes-->mail summary left column or popup (portrait)

mail detail (the email message) right column or underlay (portrait)

The controls and text are about 30-50% larger than on the smaller screen.

If you started with the larger format and scale it down to 45% of the original-- it could easily be less usable than the iPhone.

Samsung, on their Galaxy Tab appears to have provided all the basic "system apps" (mail, calendar, contacts, browser, etc.) where this might be a factor. What they appear to have done is something between the iPhone and iPad -- something specifically scaled to the 7" format.

This, at least, looks OK. Any other Android tablets that do not provide their own "system apps" will have them disproportionate to the size of the screen.

Samsung, on their Galaxy Tab appears to have provided all the basic "system apps" (mail, calendar, contacts, browser, etc.) where this might be a factor. What they appear to have done is something between the iPhone and iPad -- something specifically scaled to the 7" format.

My neighbor just bought the Samsung and was showing me the features. The Graffiti like interface for contact search is quite impressive as is the swipe text entry.

That would require some pretty good batteries in those 'wireless' headphones. You're probably right though. Especially for running. That's where a watch-music-player would totally excel.

For portable music players a watch with good wireless headphones makes a tonne of sense. The headphones is where the innovation needs to happen though, not the nano itself. They need to have serious battery life, and they need to be tiny. And just as important it needs to be no "extra" hassle to charge the headphones.

Everything old is new again...

.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Too big to fit in a pocket, too small to two-hand type, too big to two-thumb type.

If Apple wants a low-end iPad to sell alongside iPad 2.0 next year, they can just keep the
current iPad 1.0 low-end model and drop its price by $100. BOOM. Works for iPhone,
wil work for iPad if Apple ever needs to do it. Not very likely.

Typically Id agree that a dismissal from Jobs means that they are planning it, but the wording typically focuses on how Apple doesnt have the ability to make the crap others are doing or some other vague comments, but this was specifically about the 7 tablet and he was very specific about that.

Based on that wording and the likelihood that Apple prototyped numerous shapes and sizes in HW before landing on the 9.7 4:3 1024x768 iPad that they really dont have any plans for a 7 iPad. That said, I welcome it as its 4x the area as iPhone/Touch display and ¼ the area of the iPad, and can fit in lab coats as often noted as the only real world example for this size display.

If Jobs is using some very weak misdirect to deter other tablet makers that really have no choice as they cant compete with the iPad directly on display size, they may just be waiting for the iPad to situate for a couple years before introducing a new display size as this will require a new UI to be developed, a new App Store and new SDK. This isnt something that should be pushed on the heals of the current iPad even if it was ready, at least not unless they cant get 9.7 iPad component supply, like the display, but i dont think that is the case.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Whether or not the iPad is a "viable general purpose computer" ain't got nothin to do with nothin.

The subject of discussion is "Jobs then quipped that small form-factor tablets will need to ship with sandpaper so users can file down their fingers to the point where they can hit smaller targets on the screen. Elements can only get so small before users can't perform these types of touch and pinch gestures, Jobs insisted."

His comments are equally applicable to the iTouch.

A lot of people have gone through this but let me spell it out for you.

Take any app that runs on both the the iPhone as well as the iPad. You'll find that their user interfaces are quite different from each other. The iPhone version has fewer controls on each page than the iPad version because there is a lot less screen real estate on the iPhone. So the developer has to write two UIs - one for the iPad version of his app and one for the iPhone version.

Now take a 7 inch iPad. Which of the two versions of the UI would you use? Let's start with the iPad version - which is what you would want to do since this is a tablet. If you do that, your UI gets scaled down and you end up with UI elements that are way too small for anyone's fingers to comfortably manipulate. That is what Steve Jobs was referring to. The problem does not apply to the iPhone/iPod Touch because the UI is completely different. Using a scaled-up iPhone UI on your 7 inch screen does not work either. That will look ridiculous - you end up with comically large buttons and text on your screen.

So, to make a good app for a 7 inch tablet, the app developer needs have yet another UI for his app. This is not something that Jobs thinks most developers will be willing to do.

Whether or not the iPad is a "viable general purpose computer" ain't got nothin to do with nothin.

The subject of discussion is "Jobs then quipped that small form-factor tablets will need to ship with sandpaper so users can file down their fingers to the point where they can hit smaller targets on the screen. Elements can only get so small before users can't perform these types of touch and pinch gestures, Jobs insisted."

His comments are equally applicable to the iTouch.

No! The iTouch controls start out big enough!

If you 2x them on the iPad, they are too big.

Native (not 2 x) iPad increases the control (key) size by about 30%.

If the 7" Tablet tries to downsize the slightly larger iPad controls, proportionate to the screen (keep the same screen layout) they will be smaller than the iTouch

iTouch control (key) size == 1

iPad control (key) size == 1.3 on a 4x screen

7" Tab control (key) size == .7 on .49 screen

Math aside, an iPad control scaled down to a 7" tablet is smaller than an iPhone control.
.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Typically I’d agree that a dismissal from Jobs means that they are planning it, but the wording typically focuses on how Apple doesn’t have the ability to make the crap others are doing or some other vague comments, but this was specifically about the 7” tablet and he was very specific about that.

Based on that wording and the likelihood that Apple prototyped numerous shapes and sizes in HW before landing on the 9.7” 4:3 1024x768 iPad that they really don’t have any plans for a 7” iPad. That said, I welcome it as it’s 4x the area as iPhone/Touch display and ¼ the area of the iPad, and can fit in lab coats as often noted as the only real world example for this size display.

If Jobs is using some very weak misdirect to deter other tablet makers that really have no choice as they can’t compete with the iPad directly on display size, they may just be waiting for the iPad to situate for a couple years before introducing a new display size as this will require a new UI to be developed, a new App Store and new SDK. This isn’t something that should be pushed on the heals of the current iPad even if it was ready, at least not unless they can’t get 9.7” iPad component supply, like the display, but i don’t think that is the case.

OK, now I agree with you! Seriously, I agree, Stevo seems very adamant here-not to do it, that is! Best

Jobs then quipped that small form-factor tablets will need to ship with sandpaper so users can file down their fingers to the point where they can hit smaller targets on the screen. Elements can only get so small before users can't perform these types of touch and pinch gestures, Jobs insisted.

If you design an app for a 7inch screen, you'll be fine. Why doesn't Steve get this? Hell, with a 7inch screen you would get the benefit of bigger real estate and the real possibility you could continue to thumb type.

I agree! And, most assuredly, Steve "gets" this.

There are a couple of apps for the iPad that allow you to split and reposition the kb. I spent several $ on one -- and it was pretty shitty. Didn't bother with the more expensive one, as I don't thumb type.

,

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

What you see as bitching, I see as setting the record straight. If he doesn't do that, who is going to ... you? .... not bloody likely!

He's not setting the record straight. It's marketing. And marketing has little to do with setting the record straight. It's about giving the appearance that Apple has the correct solutions for everything. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. Even Apple occasionally makes mis-steps.

Since when are Americans the whole bloody world? World-wide, Apple's at best (considering the latest info) 5th in terms of profit and 65th in terms of revenue. A good "Job" all-in-all, but let's not exaggerate.

Apple is the second largest company based on market capitalization which is how the largest company is determined by financial markets worldwide.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

"We think the 7 inch tablets will be dead on arrival, and manufacturers will realize they're too small and abandon them next year. They'll then increase the size, abandoning the customers and developers who bought into the smaller format," Jobs predicted.

The A4 is actually the S5 with reduced complexity and price. The S5 basically had a bunch of shit that Apple didn't need.

I guess Samsung could copy what Apple did, but I think that leaves them open to lawsuits. I'm not sure what privileges Samsung has with the A4.

Samsung put a cortex-A8 in their galaxy S phone which sold 5 million units. It's a great chip in a great phone. The downside with the galaxy S, however, is Samsung went with a bad file system (not one of the best ones to use in Linux) so you'll see lag every once in a while, especially when pulling up information. People have already figured out a fix, but this is one of those situations where most people won't get on their computer and research this and do what's necessary.

Either way, it's looking like Samsung WILL be giving us some decent stuff in the future.

The Galaxy S' poor FAT32 file system lag can easily be fixed. Most Android users root their phones anyway.

The Galaxy S' biggest problem, not mentioned by any professional reviewer and ignored by most noobs who buy the phone, is that it uses the atrocious PENTILE MATRIX subpixel arrangement that has been much maligned (deservedly). After a few weeks with my Galaxy S, I realized why Samsung's UI uses massive text because reading smaller text on that screen is nearly impossible and gives one a headache. Pentile Matrix is the equivalent of a cheap diesel engine masquerading as a performance product. Only Samsung can convince itself that the cheap technology is viable.

And the terrible build quality of the Galaxy S, especially the T-Mobile, Bell, and international models, doesn't help it much either. It just feels so ridiculously cheap in one's hand, although the Captivate is fairly nice for an Android (not saying much). In the end, we have a good and promising OS (Android) but relatively poor hardware (Samsung, LG, Sony Ericsson). Only the HTC Incredible (with the S-LCD, not the craptastic Pentile Matrix AMOLED), Motorola Droid 2, and Droid X are true contenders to the iPhone 4.